Case law

In Re Kochs'estates

142 N.W.2d 541 · Supreme Court of Iowa · May 3, 1966

He qualified November 10, 1960, and on May 4, 1961, Elmer and Lucille filed the claim which resulted in these proceedings. Dr. … It is well established that an account stated extends only to those transactions contemplated and intended by the parties, and the burden of proof is upon the party seeking to establish the item claimed was not to be included

Cedar Rapids Water Co. v. City of Cedar Rapids

117 Iowa 250 · Supreme Court of Iowa · May 29, 1902

The chief engineer shall be elected by the legal and qualified electors of said city, as other city officers are elected, on the first Monday in March of each year, and may appoint or discharge, by and with the consent of … The court correctly stated the issues to the jury, and instructed that the burden was on plaintiff to establish the allegations of its reply. Hence there is no merit in appellant’s argument with reference thereto. 8 YI.

Amended August 25, 2014 Nick Rhoades v. State of Iowa

Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 13, 2014

“Human immunodeficiency virus” means the human immunodeficiency virus identified as the causative agent of acquired immune deficiency syndrome. b. … By taking judicial notice, we explained, Keene recognized “what is clearly common knowledge in today’s society.” Id. at 551.

In Re Estate of Evans

212 Iowa 1 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Sep 22, 1930

Hynes, who was nominated in the will as executor without bond and as trustee, qualified in both capacities. … "Why it was drawn in the middle of the year does not clearly appear, nor does it very clearly appear why it was not cashed and used when drawn.

Dille v. White

132 Iowa 327 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Nov 20, 1906

Dec. 383 ), a decision which was clearly right upon the facts involved. … Weed is clearly obiter. In Hoeflinger v. Wells, 47 Wis. 631 ( 3 N.

In the Matter of the Estate of Johnny VAJGRT, Deceased, Bill Ernst, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant

801 N.W.2d 570 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Aug 5, 2011

All the more reason, therefore, to defer to our established precedents and the legislature’s prior decisions not to disturb them. IV. Conclusion. … Is there a way to explain why the unconscious tortfeasor would have his assets exposed to punitive liability, while the deceased’s estate would be immunized from it? Haralson v.

Channon v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

629 N.W.2d 835 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jul 5, 2001

We agree with the district court that Channoris pleadings clearly establish that the operative facts which she alleges give rise to her claims under the ICRA are the same as those upon which she relies as giving rise to her … It follows then that “a wide variety of actions, some blatant and some subtle, can qualify.” Id.

T.H.E. Insurance Company v. Estate of Stephen Paul Booher Gladys F. Booher, as Administrator and Gladys F. Booher, Individually

Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 5, 2020

Clearly, the district court decided this question adversely to Booher. On appeal, however, the Boohers primarily focus on their assertion that section II of the CGL policy provides coverage. … Here, the allegations are sufficient to permit the plaintiff to attempt to sail between the rocks of immunity established by Iowa Code section 85.20 and the shoals of a coverage defense under Article I of the CGL policy

State v. Rains

574 N.W.2d 904 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Feb 18, 1998

We will not find an abuse of discretion unless it is shown that such discretion was exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. Christensen , 323. N.W.2d at 222. … the following standard for the admission of expert testimony: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified

Pursley v. Hayes

22 Iowa 11 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Apr 8, 1867

The latter part of this proposition is most clearly untenable. … We clearly think not.

Loftus v. Department of Agriculture of Iowa

211 Iowa 566 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Sep 22, 1930

The unconstitutionality must ‘ ‘ plainly, clearly, and palpably appear.” … Clearly, the purpose of the legislation was to stamp out tuberculosis and prevent speculators from buying up diseased cattle for sale to the state.

Jahn Patric Kirlin and Sara Louise Kirlin v. Dr. Barclay A. Monaster, M.D.; Dr. Christian William Jones, M.D.; and Physicians Clinic d/b/a Methodist Physicians Clinic-Council Bluffs

Supreme Court of Iowa · Mar 21, 2025

“A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on such matters, and the exercise of that discretion will ordinarily not be disturbed unless it was exercised on clearly untenable grounds or to an extent clearly unreasonable … Within a few weeks, a new trial date was set, but there was no agreement establishing a new TSDP.

Rance v. Gaddis

226 Iowa 531 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Mar 7, 1939

This defendant denies specially that he ever courted the said Bea Banks, or ever asked her to marry him, or that he ever promised to marry her; he admits, however, that he was impressionable and likewise that he was not immune … This clearly indicates future attention in a final decree. The final part of the memorandum states: “Judgment will be entered against the defendants.” This denotes something more that the court would do in the future.

Burris v. Titzell

189 Iowa 1322 · Supreme Court of Iowa · May 15, 1920

Each act complained of as negligence serves in the pleading as a basis •for a separate cause of action, and the right to recover on either cause of action rests upon the proof offered to establish it. … This Avitness was shown to be qualified to testify, and there Avas error in the court in not permitting her to answer this question.

Shaw v. Addison

239 Iowa 377 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Sep 16, 1947

From what we have stated before, the burden was not on defendant, but even if it were it is clearly shown decedent was not acting under anyone’s influence. … The court held the testimony was not admissible, under the objection that she was incompetent under the dead man statute, but there was certain other evidence that was clearly admissible that we feel establishes her ownership

Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board Vs. James W. Mcgrath

713 N.W.2d 682 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Apr 21, 2006

McGrath’s allegations of prejudice are also legally inadequate to establish the materiality of the evidence in question. … Such conduct is clearly improper. 625 N.W.2d at 714 (citation omitted). McGrath violated DR 5-101(B).

Harris v. Bills

203 Iowa 1034 · Supreme Court of Iowa · May 10, 1927

This is a well established principle in the law of contracts. Morse v. Tillotson & Wolcott Co., 253 Fed. 340 ; Curtis Land & Loan Co. v. Interior Land Co., 137 Wis. 341 (118 N. W. 853); McGuire Bros. v. … This evidence clearly indicates a waiver on the part of Bills to the method of procedure adopted by the escrow holder.

Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Green

231 Iowa 1371 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Mar 17, 1942

The amount of the premium to be paid is determined mathematically from certain established and recognized tables of mortality. … Until such time, therefore, as the premium should be fully earned, the right of the insuring company thereto was a qualified one, and, speaking broadly, was impressed with a trust, created by the statute.

Amana Society v. Colony Inn, Inc.

315 N.W.2d 101 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jan 20, 1982

As already discussed, section 614.24 should be construed liberally; when it is read in that manner, this action is clearly one to “establish [an] interest” in the real estate. B. … has been followed and the Amana deeds, many of which clearly have not been affected by 614.24.

Denning v. Butcher

91 Iowa 425 · Supreme Court of Iowa · May 25, 1894

sanity or insanity of another, having first stated to the jury the facts and circumstances upon which said opinion is founded, and that the court has no right to pass upon the question of the sufficiency of the facts to qualify … That must depend upon the circumstances of each case, and must be left for the trial court to determine in the exercise of a wise legal discretion; and its ruling in that respect should not be disturbed, unless it clearly